Talk:Clinopodium douglasii

Previous version

Previous version stated:

"A misspelling of hierba Buena, or 'good herb' in Spanish. A marijuana reference."

Not quite. Yerba is indeed an alternative spelling of hierba in parts of Latin America, but yerbabuena or hierbabuena is actually mint. If you're looking to get high when you buy "hierbabuena" chewing-gum in Mexico, you're going to be disappointed :-) -- Infrogmation

Well technically it means spearmint, but it is still sometimes used as slang for marijuana in mexico, i don't know if this is an english translation import or comes from rather obvious connotation of its literal meaning. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL... Yes, Yerbabuena doesn't have anything to do with marijuana. "Yerba" is an alternate spelling of "hierba" (formal spelling) in Spanish, meaning "herb". Yerbabuena or hierbabuena refers usually to those mints in latin countries but "buena" ("good") refers to their medicinal properties. It's possible, yes, tha some gangs use the word yerbabuena as an euphemism for marijuana but that would be a very isolated phenomenon with no documented proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.24.113 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Medicinal uses

In order to make this article more properly encyclopedic: please add this herb's medicinal uses. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Move back to Clinopodium douglasii

I have two concerns about this series of edits by Peter G Werner.

• It should have been achieved by a page move rather than by moving content from Micromeria douglasii to Clinopodium douglasii using cut-and-paste.
• The major taxonomic databases used by WP:WikiProject Plants as the usual source of names, such as Plants of the World Online and the World Flora Online, use Micromeria douglasii, which was where the content was previously. What is the justification for the change?

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

To your first point, because I don't have admin privileges, I can't move a page to another that already exists. I requested that move *months* ago, and that was all but ignored. So rather than play an endless game of "mother may I?", I decided to be WP:BOLD and simply make the move myself, even if it wasn't done the "correct" way.

To your next point, I have no idea what Wikipedia's relationship is with these "official" sources you mention, but I do know that neither Plants of the World Online nor the World Flora Online nor any other database is any sort official plant nomenclature central, the way some editors seem to think it is, though I can point to a number of other databases that do use Clinopodium douglasii.

My justification for this change is because it is clearly established that this species is *not part of Micromeria*, nor is it part of the Satureja/Thymus clade. Brauchler, et al, 2010, which represents the most recent molecular taxonomy of the Subtribe Menthinae, makes this quite clear: [1]. There are several other sources for this as well, which I can dig up. Note that this species placement in Clinopodium is provisional as well - it is simple the closest-to-accurate available name. It actually comes out in a group of New World mint species with poorly sorted nomenclature and in an uncertain position within that clade. Many of these, including C. douglasii are provisionally placed in Clinopodium, a paraphyletic genus that is closely related to the New World mints clade. This is an imperfect placement, but far more accurate that previous placements in Micromeria or Satureja. The Jepson eFlora [2], Calflora [3], the USDA [4], and iNaturalist [5] all follow this usage. Wikipedia should too. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Peter G Werner: I don't know where you requested the move, but such issues are often best raised at WT:WikiProject Plants, where some professional botanists hang out. You don't need admin privileges, just page move privileges, to use User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap. I suggest you look into this.

The general advice to use PoWO and WFO is not because they are in any way "official" nor because they are always right, but because it helps to achieve consistency among articles if we use a few major taxonomic databases for article names and taxoboxes, while of course discussing alternatives in the text. We are not supposed to rely on primary sources, like the Brauchler et al. (2010) paper, so we need to see their conclusions taken up by secondary sources. Hence my question "What is the justification for the change?" shouldn't be answered in the first instance by referring to journal articles. However, I do accept that US sources, including Vascular Plants of the Americas can be used to justify using Clinopodium douglasii, but the text must be clear that other sources do not. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to expand a bit on the issue of consistency. When you have genera like Clinopodium and Micromeria that have very widespread distributions, species lists have to be obtained from databases that attempt worldwide coverage. The Jepson eFlora, Calflora, USDA, etc. don't attempt to list all species in the genus. So lists like those at List of Clinopodium species or Micromeria are forced to use sources like PoWO. If species articles then use different sources and names, you end up with inconsistencies. (It's not entirely uncommon to find duplicated articles under synonyms.) It's for this reason that I personally would prefer the article to be at Micromeria douglasii so long as PoWO takes this view, with (of course) a full discussion of the taxonomic and phylogenetic issues. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

And I strongly prefer Clinopodium based on the taxonomic arguments I've outline, rather than rigid adherence to a single database. And, BTW, you really won't find much 'consistency' among New World Menthinae even staying with a single database - those species have been assigned names in a non-systematic way for decades and the databases you suggest adhering to reflect this. So I guess we're at an impasse. Any other folks want to weigh in on this? Peter G Werner (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Note - as of this edit, this is now a proper move of the article with the full article history. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)